User:DGG/keycodes

123
x`[ `[

x+

x1 ~

x2 *[[:

x3 *:

x3pp substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices

x3pr substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads

x4 ]] *[[:

x5050 Placement on a 50 under 50 list or the like is merely a promotional device--and everything said in such articles should be considered unreliable, being almost entirely derived from the person themselves, of their press agent's promotional puffery.

A
xacadbfix1 We do not use adjectives of praise or quality in biographies, especially biographies of living people. They're always subjective, and WP is not the place for opinion. It is usually possible to reword it, as I did, by such wording fixes as changing "best known for" to "is a specialist in". Is a specialist in is objective--the professorship and the publications shows it.

xacadbio An encyclopedia article is not a CV. Make sure the article contains, first, the basic biographical information such as birthyear and birthdplace, then the full sequence of degrees and professional positions in chronological order, with dates. Next, a complete list of books published, with year, date, publisher, ISBN (referenced to WorldCat), and links to published reviews of the books; and (in the sciences) the 5 or so most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them from Google Scholar of Scopus or ISI; any national level awards--(not junior awards or awards from their own university) Add major national-level outside positions, such as president of the major national organizations, and any positions of editor-in-chief ; Membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. Very sparse articles attract skepticism. as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committes.

xacadbio3 Giving lectures at conferences is utterly routine for both notable and non-notable academics. (I certainly had a non-notable academic career, but I've given a few dozen conference talks--one or two of them have even been invited.) This is the sort of thing people list in their CVs, because it's the current convention to list everything possible in a CV. But WP does not publish CS--for minor we can just link to the CV in the External references. It's much better to focus on those things that make a person notable. This includes prestigeous named lectures, it includes being chair of a very important conference.

xacadbio4 Similarly for fellowships. Even non-notable people have a few. We do not include graduate and post-graduate fellowships, but we list prestigious ones that people having some knowledge in the field will recognize. And similarly for most items in poplular press, or television talks, or U-Tube. And similarly for TedX. (Ted, however, is worth mentioning). When listing fellowships, or publications, or awards, or anything in any article, it's puffery to use a phrase like "for example" or "including" -- see WP:VAGUE/ Yjos ;eaves the reader wondering how many there really were--and it is often a promotional technique also. It's enough to list the important ones.

xcadbio5 For people in fields where notability is primarily by published books from university presses, we do not include articles--they count as minor. Including them even gives the impression that there's aren't really enough books. (butwe do include all the boosk, and if possible make references to book reviews, though it is usually considered puffery to quote them) We don't include book chapters or the like--in most fields they're minor and are not always peer-reviewed. . (And of course we never refer to listing on Amazon, or book-jacket blurbs)

xacadfix2 I have been one of the editors at Wikipedia who has worked most on academic biographies for the last 13 years, and I was one of the people responsible for the current acceptance of WP:PROF, without which we would have many fewer. I concentrate my efforts on making the bios for notable people stronger, especially in fields other than the sciences, because those are the fields where people unfamiliar with the academic world tend to nominate for deletion.

We have a serious problem with promotional bios in all fields, including this. Such bios are usually written by university PR staff, though sometimes by the professor's students. (They are also increasingly written by undeclared paid editors, who solicit faculty who ae unawarethat this sort of editing is not permitted in WP). Really promotional bios are deleted usually by speedy deletion, even when the person is clearly notable, unless I or one oft he other 2 or 3 editors willing to do it think the person so extremely notable that it's worth rewriting. Ordinarily promotional bios for borderline people are usually deleted at AfD if they get noticed.

It's therefore important for all editors working in these field to avoid anything that might sound like promotion.Even when the intend is clearly to write a NPOV bio, as is the case with your work, it's all too easy to sound a little promotional. (For the areas you work in, there's still considerable skepticism with classics, because some of the people here who do not understand try to remove them on the basis of the generally low citation count--which is of course totally inapplicable in this field; There also remain a few people who give unwarranted skeptical scrutiny to articles on women, including women academics). The best way of dealing with this is to make the articles as strong as possible.

Strong does not necessarily mean extensive. it means not using promotional language, not including minor material, and writing concisely without duplication.

xacadn The criterion for notability of academic faculty is WP:PROF. This does not require secondary sources for the career, only reliable sources, and an official university CV is a reliable source for this purpose. The accomplishments which show someone notable under this rule are usually the publications,and these can be regarded as secondary sources. It's nice to get additional secondary sources, but they are not actually necessary.

xacadn2 he standard for researchers and academic faculty is not whether there are third-party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject. The usual way is by citations to their work, but there are quick alternatives, such as holding a named or similar  professorship at a research university or by    showing the person is a member or fellow  of one of several extremely prestigious organizations: Among these are being a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a fellow of the American Physical Society or American Chemical Society or American Geophysical Union,  IEEE,  or a member of the National Academy of Science or Royal Society. Anyone meeting these qualifications is always notable. Biographic data is also necessary, and it can be taken from ay reliable source, including an official CV. This particular special notability guideline is a full alternative to the GNG. Meeting either one is sufficient. This has been a thoroughly accepted consensus standards for many years, and in reviewing articles one reviews according to the consensus.

xacadpromo We have a serious problem with promotional bios in all fields, including this. Such bios are usually written by university PR staff, though sometimes by the professor's students. This editing is not permitted except with the properdeclaration of WP:Conflict of interest, and, if university staff, WP:PAID. (They are also increasingly written by undeclared paid editors, who solicit faculty who are unaware that this sort of editing is never permitted in WP). Really promotional bios are always deleted usually by speedy deletion, even when the person is clearly notable, one of the few editors willing to do it think the person so extremely notable that it's worth rewriting. Ordinarily promotional bios for orinarily notable people are usually deleted at AfD if they get noticed.

xacadsecondary The accomplishments which show someone notable under this rule are usually the publications,and these can be regarded as secondary sources, and the editors of the books and journals and the citing authors are the third-party sources..

xad advertising xadx This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article.

xafxafd At Articles for Creation the criterion for acceptance is only whether the article is likely to pass a community discussion at WP:AFD. xafcmove Please do not accept your own drafts or move them to mainspace. Though technically possible, the defeats the purpose of Articles for Creation by eliminating the opportunity for articles to be reviewed and improvedon the basis of those reviews. xafd WP:Articles for deletion/

xags (Cited 999 times, according to Google Scholar )

xalready article already in Wikipedia xaol dgoodmanny@aol.com xar article

xara As reviewing administrator, xara+ As reviewing administrator, I decided not to delete your article. xara- As reviewing administrator, I found it necessary to delete the article. xaraok :As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article.

xars articles xaskme If you have any questions or need any help, just ask me on my talk page xavoidpro The guide to avoid promotional wording is to say what you mean in the terms you would use in telling a person what you do. xawc According to WorldCat, the book is held in libraries

B
xbadafc Draftified article due to improper AfC review by sockpuppet.

xbadrefs It is a good argument for deletion when some or all of the references are about multiple products where this firm is only mentioned, or indiscriminate write-ups in local papers, or are mere notice of financial investments or staff appointments, or the sort of interview where the company representative is allowed to say whatever they which--and that is understandably enough to promote their company.

xbadrev An article you recently created, ARTICLENAME, had an improper review and is not ready to remain published. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

xburc bureaucratic xbury bureaucracy

C
xc Comment:

xca xcfr check for references xciteweb The references do not display clearly--please see WP:CITE WEB and use the website or work parameter (and, if relevant the PUBLISHER parameter as well), or else WP:CITE NEWS xck check xckcit check for citations to the person's papers and books

xcoi WP:Conflict of Interest xcoiw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

xcopy It gives the impression that the material has been completely or partially copied or closely paraphrased from another source. This is not permitted, and all such material must be rewritten. xcopypaste Please make certain that none of the material was copied or closely paraphrased from any previously published source or website. For an explanation of our guidelines, see also WP:PLAGIARISM xcopyvio We can not use it here without a full free license under the formalities of WP:DCM, which irrevocably permits anyone in the world for using, modify, and distributing it for any purpose, even commercial. But that is not advised, for material on a website is usually written in a promotional manner, and is generally not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is better to rewrite.

xcreative Notability accordingto WP:CREATIVE requires evidence of woks in the permanent collection of major museums, or of substantial critical studiesin tindependent reliable sources xcsd The criteria for speedy deletion are intended to be interpreted literally, and narrowly. Before you make further deletion nominations, please read carefully WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. xcs Does not meet requirements at WP:CREATIVE--no works in permanent collections of major museums; no extensive discussions of his work in major third party reliable sources.

D
xd January 20, 2022

xdcm For anything previously published, there are two choices: rewrite it completely in your own words, or obtain copyright permission according to WP:DCM, which requires the copyright owner to give a license according to WP:CC BY-SA, which gives an irrevocable license for everyone in the world to use or modify the material and republish it for any purpose, even commercial. Most companies do not want to give such permission, but even if you can obtain it, the material is not suitable, because it was written promotionally, to say what the company would like to say, as is the normal purpose of a company web site. But an encyclopedia gives the information that people who have heard of the subject might want to know, which is quite different.

xdd *Delete xdd2 Delete. on two grounds: first, non-notble based on the analysis of the sources. Second, clear promotionalism. This manner of writing an "article" based on a multiplicity of very low grade sources is a standard technique of promotional editors, paid and unpaid. The real give-away, though is in the Early life and education paragraph: the emphasis on her early motivations, express in terms designed to make an emotional appeal, is the real staple of paid & unpaid promotional editors. You'll find it in the same place in thousands of articles. It's not a ring or conspiracy--it's a common trope learned from current techniques of advertising. We need to eliminate it from WP, and any article on an actual notable person contaminated with such stuff needs to have it removed; if it's too pervasive to be removed, it needs to be rewritten. She's not important enough to be worth the rewrite.

xdefpro Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about himself, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know.

xdefpromo We're an encyclopedia, not a guide to charities. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. The reader knows that if it wants  individual stories about individual recipients, it will find them in the web pages and booklets meant to actuate prospective donors. That's what the organization's web pages and promotional material are for. A useful rule of thumb is if it reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia.

xdel Please read WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD   before doing further deletion nominations xdn does not xdna ''Do not add individuals whose notability is not shown by having WP articles, or obviously qualified for them, such as President of a major company. (A company not notable enough for an article here is insufficiently major) !! xdnr Do not resubmit unless you have much better references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. xdraft And, Do not move the draft to mainspace yourself--it defeats the purpose of review xdraftprof An article you recently cr`onlyarticle F]] guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. !!

E
xearlier In earlier years, when standards were lower, Wikipedia accepted many articles that were promotional, that we would not nowadays accept. It will be many years until we get all of them fixed or removed. In the meantime, the least we can do is not add to them. xead This is essentially an advertisement.

xea encyclopedia article xen encyclopedia xenc encyclopedia xenc encyclopedia xec encyclopedic xes encyclopedias

xed editor xeds editors xeditvoi However, if you are going to edit on the subject, you have WP:Conflict of interest, and must not edit directly, but request changes on the article talk page, followed by a line reading   xemail dgoodmanny@gmail.com

xepr This is essentially a press release. xeppr This is essentially a promotional press release.

xeverybiomed Every biomedical scientist at least hopes for practical clinical application, just as every entrepreneur hopes for a wildly successful business. Once they have become practical and successful, then they're appropriate to discuss here. xeveryguote In particular, every quote or attribution needs an exact source. Every individual statement about a living person needs an exact source. xexp explicit xexpy explicitly xexternal When we refer to an organization  that does not have a Wikipedia page, we do not make an external link that gives the impression that it does. See WP:ELPOINTS number 2.

F G H
xfirst First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD. xfirstadd First check for additional sources, including printed sources, and only if not found, then nominate for deletion at AfD. xfirstapprop First check in appropriate sources to see if it can be referenced; only if not, then take to AfD.

xfix[pro To make this acceptable first remove adjectives of praise, excellence or importance. The material in the article will show if the subject is indeed notable. Remove most repetitions of the subject's name—substitute "He, She, They, or "It", as appropriate. Then, remove minor prizes; remove statements about her participation in local events. In general,  remove language that might make sense to use in a webpage or an advertisement; if the article looks like a webpage it will not be acceptable in an encyclopedia.

xgl genealogical xgy genealogy

xgs (Cited 999 times, according to Google Scholar. ) xg (Cited 99 times ) xgscite

xhfactor judging by h factor alone is meaningless. Eugene Garfield, the inventor of the technique, thought so also,. h =34 could mean 500 400 399....34 or 40, 39....34. Only the first is a record that shows notability. Scientists are not judged by their routine work, but their best work. Using just h factor would be akin to judging an author by their average sales figures, rather than having written 2 or 3 best-sellers. That's what the warning on just using h factor means.

I J K
xia Help:Using the Wayback Machine xif If you can do this, add the information and resubmit; otherwise an article will not be possible. xifdel If the article should be listed for deletion, which is always possible, notify me on my user talk page, and I will try to help. --I work on too many article to watch them individually.

xifiran I may have my own views about what might be desirable if I ran WP. I may similarly have my own views about what might be desirable if I ran the Real World.

xinline the rule (from WP:MINREF is that inline references are needed for :" Direct quotations, Any statement that has been challenged, Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged, and Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons."

xintview the interview is a platform for him to say whatever he cares to, and is therefore not independent

xisbn ISBN

xkk *Keep.

L M
xlfr look for references xlistcat Lists and categories are complementary. A list has the advantage that it can give some information, not just a page of names, so people trying to identify someone can find the person they have in mind, and people browsing can find something interesting.

xmedres This is an article dealing with psychiatry, a branch of medicine. The references therefore need to be of WP:MEDRS standard, which means the use of recent authoritative reviews rather than isolated primary articles from the medical literature. It also means that terms such has 'significantly" need numerical values.

xminor Promotional articles on minor companies often have clear signs. One of them is a great many weak citations for an apparently insignificant company. With respect to notability, articles that include very minor awards give the impression that there are no major awards. Articles that emphasise the foundation and initial funding of a company give the impression that there is little in the way of actual accomplishments. Articles that use mainly press releases for references imply that they is nothing better. Articles that use local journals for references imply that there's nothing widely known. Articles that include trivial articles on trivial charities imply there is nothing major. As for promotionalism, articles that list every officer of a company imply that the intent is to promote the company; articles that emphasize the founder's motivations imply that also; articles that use buzzwords like "solution" imply that the editor doesn't know how to write anything other than a press release.Articles that include vague terms of praise or excellence imply that the editor does not understand the difference between that and an encyclopedia. If the company is notable, there will be better material than this. If it isn't present, it indicates either a promotional intent, or that it isn't there—or, sometimes, that it's an over-hasty job by a coi editor

xmisguided this is a misguided attempt at posting a cv or personal web page on wp, but that does not necessarily qualify for G11. Use MFD if you like—we have no consistent way of handling these. xmm a merge is still needed xmrauthor merge or at least redirect to the author xmrcompany merge or at least redirect to the company

xmyadvice You will understand that all of this is my own personal thoughts on the matter, and the most realistic advice I can give  on what is likely to succeed. xmyfriend My friend, this is an encyclopedia, not a social media service. This is not a suitable place to post personal information, especially information that gives any possibly identifying information. As an admin here, I've there removed your posting of a Draft page. But I urge you to contribute something useful, such as fixing errors, or addding references to articles.

N
xnb notable xny notability xnn non-notable xncit notable—just needs citation to their published work xnoev No evidence of notability.

xnck needs check xnckr need check for references xnec non-encyclopedic xncc afd close: no consensus

xnewschool I suppose they are relying on the recent RfC. The recent RfC said first that there was no consensus to use SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and there was no consensus to change the rule that high schools areto be considered notable. That not very helpful close leaves us in the same state as before, except that we need to use a longer argument. That we consider them notable is part of a rational compromise by which we do not consider elementary schools notable. Before we had the compromise we had 10 or 20 afds a day on both,and the results were no better than random, depending on how much energy the proponents of each position had. If we want to clog up afd again with decisions that really don't matter, we can go back to then, and once more have a random selection. I think we need to concentrate our effort onto things that matter.

xnomore There are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. Do you want your organization to be a good example, or another bad example?

xnotadd In earlier years WP accepted many such promotional articles, but as we have become a more attractive place  for attempted advertising, our standards have risen. It will be many years until we remove the 50,000 or so articles we need to get rid of, but the least we can do is not add to them.

xnotonly Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia

xnotonly2 It's going to be argued that the firm is notable. But it does not matter. Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. And it's unreasonable to expect volunteers to rewrite properly the hundreds of thousands of paid promotional articles that other people were paid for writing improperly.

xnotweb A promotional  article is one that resemble a web page: the practical rule is that if it would do as a web page for the organization, it won't do for the encyclopedia. A promotional article is one that resemble a web page: the practical rule is that if it would do as a web page for the organization, it won't do for the encyclopedia.

xnowbanned undoubtedly paid editing in violation of the terms of use. (the current tou requiring identification went into effect June 16, 2014. This article was started by the now-banned editor/sockmaster on. He was banned a few days laterom Dec 24. (it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as G5 because there were substantial good faith edits by others. But that just means it requires discussion, not that it should be kept. We are benefitted when such articles are deleted, because it removes the work from Wikipedia, where the continued presence of such articles is a disgrace. Deleting it further helps to explain to naive outsiders why they should not unethical paid editors. It will be easy enough to start again from scratch by someone responsible.

xnotice When you list an article for deletion, whether by speedy, prod or afd, you must indicate this in the article summary. If you use TWINKLE, which can be activated from your user preferences, this is done automatically.

xnprob probably notable xnq might be notable xnqq might possibly be notable xnqqqq might conceivable be notable

xnprof notable because of the named professorship but some more details on biography and publications are needed

xnt Notable xny notability xnyn At AfD discussion in the past few years, awards for 30 under 30 and the like have been usually taken to indicate "Not Yet Notable". They're purely PR awards, they are organized so a great many people get the awards in one or another of the very many categories, and have no other significance.

O P
xpa (open access)

xonlyarticle '''Since this is your only contribution, and since it is written in the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. I will review it as soon as you inform me that you have provided the necessary information '''

xonlyaticle+ ''Since this is your only contribution, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.'' If, on the other hand, you have written it as part of an editathon or Wikipedia editing project, say so on the article talk page—it's not a conflict of interest, but it answers any doubt about whether there is a COI.

xonlypass Drafts only pass AfC if it appears likely that AfD would accept them as articles; the community at AfD discussions make the decision.

xonlytrans You declare a COI for  the subject, now in draft. For the rules of the English WP, you must specify if it is a paid COI—he or his organization paid you directly or indirectly for your contribution, or if you are employed by him or his organization with this as part of your work responsibilities. See WP:PAID (I recognize from deWP that you did not writet he article, so I suppose your role was to translate it)

xonlywaynew The only acceptable way to do this is to make a new account under some name, but not the name of your company, declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest with the company, and then use  Articles for Creation . There you can have your text evaluated and worked on by other editors to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a business or web directory. For more information, see  and our notability requirements at . You should also be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organization, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest 

If you do try to write the page, please note that you must show the notability of the company by substantial published articles about it in reliable source that are not press releases or based on press releases, and you must describe the company, not say how good it is, nor give information primarily of use to  prospective customers. If you do not have adequate sources for the sort of article that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia, please do not try, as it will surely not be accepted.

xotrs I'm one of the volunteers at Wikipedia who deal with questions like this. xotrsimprove But what I can and will do, since I have an interest in the subject field, purely as a volunteer, is improve the article by removing the large amount of material is more appropriate only on your web site. The article will be shorter, but better, and will not attract unfavorable attention from those editors who try to remove all articles from Wikipedia that might be considered in any way advertising and might remove more of the article than is appropriate, or even the entire article.

xoverliteral I consider as a general principle sources showing publicity are not RS for N or anything else either. Sources showing accomplishments in the field by sources reliable in that field are what is needed. The GNG applied over-literally, is so paradoxical that  I would at least  modify it  in that fashion

P
xpaid < Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure > xpd xphone 718-596-1765 / cell 718-490-7261

xpl promotional xpm promotionalism

xpldef Promotional articles (and web sites) tell the reader what the subject would like them to know; in contrast, encyclopedia articles say what the general public might reasonable want to know, having heard of the subject.

xplw Promotional writing is   where the subject says what he wants the reader to know, but an encyclopedia article gives what the general reader might wish to know.

xpnpub probably notable—check publications xport Portuguese

xppr This is a promotional press release, not an encyclopedia article. xpr press release

xprocriteria :Here's my two informal complementary explanations of the meaning of promotionalism :
 * (1) Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia.
 * (2) Promotional writing is directed towards the subject's current or prospective colleagues or students or sponsors or supporters. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject's name and want to find some objective information.

xprodcorp Mentioned in a few local media articles about fast growing companies, but not significant coverage (many of the refs are press releases and similar types of links that don't meet WP:RS.

xproductarticle If you want to write Wikipedia articles on people, don't write them on the founders of new companies. If you want to write Wikipedia articles on products, write on a generic product with multiple producers, and mention none of them.

xPROFT To clarify a little, the guideline for researchers is WP:PROF, where notability is proven by demonstrating the influence of the persons work. This in turn is usually demonstrated by showing the individual's peer-reviewed publications, and the citations to them in Google Scholar.

xPROFT@ To clarify a little further, the papers in themselves don't generally count towards notability, but the fact of the papers being highly cited does, and essentially all relevant AfDs have been kept on this basis uniformly for the last ten years, unless there were other considerations, or a doubt whether the y were sufficiently cited. The criterion for acceptance at AfC is whether AfD is likely to keep an article.

xproint The references are promotional interviews where the head of the organization is allowed to say whatever they please. Such references are not independent sources. xpromint The actual article is another promotional interview where they say what they think about their own business,. This is not an independent source, for it just repeats their words (or, more likely, the words of their PR agent). . The only notability here is perhaps their PR agent.

xprtag

npur pure advertising

npurposereview The purpose of reviewing a draft is not to pass judgment on an article, but to predict whether the community would keep or delete the article were it in mainspace. Reviewers judge on the basis of their experience in knowing what does in fact get accepted, and the reasons why those not accepted get rejected. The community judges. We only predict, both to keep unsuitable articles out of mainspace, and to help possibly suitable ones get improved enough to become likely to be accepted.

xpuzz I am considerably puzzled at the request for postponement, and if it is not improved in another 6 months, I suggest it be deleted. xpx This is a promotional press release, not an encyclopedia article.

Q R
xre ==References== ==External Links==

xreasonable As you have worked almost entirely with articles related to the XXX firm and members of its family, it is reasonable to ask you whether you have any connection with them. Please see ofur rules on WP:Conflict of Interest:
 * If you have a conflict of interest that does not include payment of money, you need just declare it on your user page.
 * If it does involve money, as an employee, agent, or paid writer, you must declare more fully according to  our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure. This requires your disclosure of every article to which you have contributed regardess of username, and a declaration on the talk page of every individual article.

nreq Then add a line reading  (include both pairs of curly brackets) and someone will come in a few days  to look at the suggestion.

nreqc I do not routinely work at Requested Changes. Since I don't think paid editors should be here at all, I don't see why I should as a volunteer assist them. I am only here to help the encyclopedia, and I specialize in removing spam and promotionalism. Once I've done that, I don't intend to involve myself further. There are many thousands of other promotional articles I need to work on.

xrestored I just restored Draft:Rick Griffith from deletion. You seem to have deleted it at G13

xrfa the reason I became an admin was specifically to look at deleted articles to see what I could rescue, as I said at my almost unanimous AfD back in 2007.) Requests for adminship/DGG

xrfcschool Based on the discussion, we find that the community is leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC [that secondary schools should be presumed to be notable], but this stops short of a rough consensus.

S T
ns ~

xsa ==Status and advice==

xsaywhere The material must have been sourced from somewhere, so say where xsourcefiction The description of the plot of a work can be take from the work itself, but not discussion of the work. The material must have been sourced from somewhere, so say where.

xsources The article can not be accepted without specific sources to verify the facts—see WP:RS and WP:REFBEGIN. Rewrite objectively, documenting from references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.

xspeedy Your patrolling of new pages is generally quite helpful, but please be a little more careful about speedy nominations. I and others have needed to decline a number of your nominations. The criterion for speedy deletion by A7 is just some plausible indication of importance, which is deliberately much less than actual notability. Please re-read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion Policy before making further nominations. (And also WP:N, including all the special rules. ) xrc Tech companies are notorious for appearing in the night like mushrooms and disappearing after a short time, but articles may still benefit the reader

xtotal It does not matter how many total publications or total citations; notability is from publishing papers which make an influence on the field, as shown by their very hgih citations: list them, with the individual values. h index discriminates between the weak and the medium level, not the medium and the exceptional.

nmtou Terms of Use ntouw our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

xtou+ I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure. In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion—we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients or contributors, but to the general public, who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on  what makes an organization notable.       xtouw+ I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization, either directly or as a paid editor, you must declare this.  See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure

In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion—we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients or contributors, but to the general public who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on what makes an organization notable.

xtprs third party reliable sources

xtu

U W X
xu

xuec unencyclopedic xupe undeclared paid editor xupes undeclared paid editors

xuseprof The relevant standard is not whether there are third-party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work.

xuseprof+ This should be considered under WP:PROF. The question for notability is the subject's influence on their discipline, as shown by published books from academic presses that have substantial third party reviews, or peer-reviewed journal articles with high citations as shown by Google Scholar or equivalent. Please indicate this, and the draft can be re-evaluated under the proper criterion.

xuseprofwhy You may disagree with my interpretation of WP:PROF, but it is the one that is used in practice at AfD. There are many rules used in practice at AfD that I disagree with, but when I review drafts, I do so in accordance with the current customary practice

xvariiations Small variations in notability in either direction will not greatly damage WP. What will cause serious harm is if we accept promotionalism or articles based on promotionalism, because that will make WP pointless—it'll be no better than Google.. This is pure promotionalism from beginning to end. Google handles this as well as it deserves, as we should stay as far away as we can from them.

xw Wikipedia xwn Wikipedian xwp Wikipedia

xwpcoi 

xwomen  It is indeed essential that we expand the coverage on notable women; we do this by adding articles on notable women. Adding articles on women who are not notable detracts from the purpose of the project, and is just as improper as adding articles on non-notable men. Using a lower standard for women implies that women cannot do as well as men. In other contexts such a statement would be seen as patronizing and misogynistic; in this context I understand that's not the intended implication, but it is misguided.

xwc WorldCat

xwelcome I urge you to continue to contribute here, and I suggest you start by reading WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, followed by WP:A primer for newcomers,  and then WP:Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and WP:Your first article. There's a great deal of very useful things to do here, and you'll learn by practice.

xwhere Question where have you checked for sources?

xxpromor This is not hopeless promotional, by the standards of draft space, which are less stringent than mainspace, because they are in draft to be fixed.

letters
xblatent  blatant xbucy  bureaucracy xcan;t  can't xdoesn;t doesn't xdon;t   don't xisn;t  isn't xlnw   leaving now xmroe more xnaive naïve xnaivete naïveté xnto not xomy On my way xportu Portuguese xthere's there's xwkh  walking home xwksub walking to subway xwryou where are you xwhyhere may possibly have shown that sources exist from which an  acceptable article could be written, tho I remain uncertain about the truly independent non-promotional  nature of some or all of them. but he has not shown that this is an acceptable article. Lack of notability may be the most common reason for deleting an article at AFD, but it's not even the most important--the encyclopedia can survive with one borderline notable article more. It could not survive in any useful way if it became a vehicle for advertising or a directory, for it would be no better than the Googles, and they do well enough without us volunteers. Nor would it survive under continuing assault by undeclared paid editors and puppets, for then we volunteers would be spending most our time here in removing them--and, as the need for this discussion shows, we're getting perilously close to it. If, as some seem to advocate, we accept material like this, written for motives such as this by editors such as this, why are we even here?